What's the process for proposing a symbol in the Unicode table?

[Asmus Freytag]

On 2/16/2024 9:38 AM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> Asmus Freytag wrote:
>
>>>> 1. What is the process for submitting assigning a codepoint to a
>>>> symbol currently missing from the Unicode tables?
>>> http://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html
>> This assumes that the "symbol" is an emoji. Which the "Flourish of
>> approval" would not necessarily be, unless the idea was to create an
>> emoji for it, like the check mark.
> The OP’s post and references seem rather clear that it is intended as a normal character, for use with normal text, often handwritten, and used in plain-text environments (e.g. “mostly in elementary schools” and “for grading schoolwork”).
>
> I would think the process for proposing normal characters would need to be followed, and this should not be proposed as an emoji for the purpose of getting it encoded via the easier emoji process.
>
Well, the similarity to a check mark is there.

We usually don't encode characters intended for use in handwriting, 
except if they are needed to digitally archive manuscripts. Not sure 
grade school papers pass that bar. However, I could be wrong and the 
details depend on how the case for encoding is argued.

In contrast, there are signs that are normally written by hand that also 
qualify as standing for an idea, that would be natural to incorporate in 
informal writing, which is the case for the check mark.

If placing the mark in a text environment where emoji would normally be 
used, would it be seen and understood as "approved" in Dutch culture? 
Would anyone use it that way? Would a Netherlands-based Consortium have 
long added it to their collection?

I don't have any of the answers. It's up to the submitters.

A./